Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 549 posts

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#521

Post by Barbing »

hnlmorg wrote: post #351
anon84873628 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it requires changing humanity. Just put a 100% wealth tax after 1 billion. And step letting money run politics.

Yeah, but who is going to lobby for it? Certainly nobody with actual money to pay for the lobbying. And which politician would want to vote that in? Certainly no one with any rich friends who donate to their campaigns. Which means no politician that supports this is ever going to have the budget to get elected in the first place. And then you have the problem that you cannot just fix this in one country. Because then…

The basic concept of an impenetrable global taxation scheme came to mind about a decade ago, but at the time I was hopeful such a thing would be possible. (Ain’t no communist, but realize nice to have public roads etc. to get your employees to work - everyone chips in -> we all make more money.)

Is it human nature to rise up once a breaking point is reached? Since I concede it is not in our nature to finish our shift at our third job and go knock on neighbors’ doors, rock the vote. (agitating to elect the least greedy capable people)

Quick, keep my hope alive!

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#522

Post by superkuh »

ceejayoz wrote: post #320
bogdanoff_2 wrote: post #290

The solution to this would be a law forcing these sites to allow third-party suggestion algorithms, so that you can choose who and how content is being suggested to you. It could be perhaps as simple as allowing third-party websites and apps for watching Youtube on your phone. And it's okay if this would be a premium paid feature, so there's no counter argument that "it costs them money to host videos". This is not a…

It seems likely that'd result in even worse suggestions becoming the norm as people adopt the third-party that gives the quick dopamine rush. It's like suggesting tastier heroin to fix drug addiction.

Parent poster has some… interesting and popular but entirely false views on neuroscience. Specifically, an extremely outdated view on concepts like the role of dopamine and dopaminergic neuronal populations in human cognition. Rather than an understanding based on science and the idea that incentice salience and valence is modulated by such populations, he is attributing pleasure and enjoyment to them because of a meme.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#523

Post by rimunroe »

tim333 wrote: post #519
strongpigeon wrote: post #12

There is a fairly low amount of details about the case in the article. This NPR article [0] has a bit more, but it's still fairly sparse. Though it's interesting how Zuckerberg thought it was a good idea to say: "If people feel like they're not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?". Given that this is a case about addiction, that feels like a shockingly bad thing to say in defense of your…

A lot of smokers don't feel they are having a good time and want to quit but can't. I'm not sure the same applies to youtube.

I knew someone who had exactly that feeling about YouTube. It was a genuine struggle for them to stop even though the amount of time they spent on it was negatively impacting their life and the content was making them more anxious.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#524

Post by rimunroe »

hnlmorg wrote: post #228
LorenPechtel wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for some reason we only use "addiction" to describe things that are recreational in nature, not drugs that have no recreational use but can be quite dangerous to discontinue abruptly.

I’m not a doctor but I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. Substances like caffeine, sugar, and painkillers are definitely still referred to as “addictive”. Whereas substances like sertraline (antidepressant) are referred to as a “dependence” because it’s dangerous to discontinue abruptly (as you said) but there isn’t any psychological addiction involved.

To elaborate, I think experts usually use these terms as follows: an addiction is something where you have a continuous and difficult to resist drive to keep doing/using something due to it being inherently rewarding. A dependence is something where if you stop regularly doing/using something you’ll experience some sort of withdrawal.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#525

Post by thin_carapace »

ien24sdq wrote: post #431
thin_carapace wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tobacco contains MAO inhibiting compounds, which potentiate nicotine and increase addiction potential. that doesnt mean nicotine on its own isnt insanely addictive, i have no idea what the guy youre responding to is talking about. however, MAOIs were withdrawn as antidepressants for a good reason - they have a terrible withdrawal all on their own.

Gwern has a pretty good post on it: https://gwern.net/nicotine Intuitively, why would you chew nicontine gum to stop smoking if it was just as addictive as cigarettes?

this article isnt as relevant as when it was written. eg regarding price, cigarette taxation has skyrocketed in certain countries. furthermore, the depicted studies were performed prior to the proliferation of disposable vapes - i somehow doubt that the idea of infinite nicotine on tap was accounted for. as to your question, some individuals find cutting down to be easier than cold turkeying. personally i opt for the latter, although this strategy should not be universally applied (eg. alcohol withdrawal may induce seizures). at the end of the day i find smoking (not vaping or gum) to be a net neutral - controlled motivation, treatment of schizophrenia symptoms, and neuroprotectivity are balanced out by addiction potential, shortening of lifespan, and reduced red blood cell count.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#526

Post by [deleted] »

hnlmorg wrote: post #228
LorenPechtel wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for some reason we only use "addiction" to describe things that are recreational in nature, not drugs that have no recreational use but can be quite dangerous to discontinue abruptly.

I’m not a doctor but I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. Substances like caffeine, sugar, and painkillers are definitely still referred to as “addictive”. Whereas substances like sertraline (antidepressant) are referred to as a “dependence” because it’s dangerous to discontinue abruptly (as you said) but there isn’t any psychological addiction involved.

[deleted]

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#527

Post by Ferret7446 »

danny_codes wrote: post #214
twoodfin wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m saying society should tread extremely carefully in attempting to regulate citizens’ potentially psychologically addictive behaviors.

Good news, social media has been extensively studied and found to be addictive. So we have little need to tread carefully, we already know it’s addictive. Fortunately it also has minimal to no value to society, so even if we overreacted and banned it completely it’d be fine

Good news, the thing you like had been found to be addictive. Please relinquish your freedom, this is for your own good.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#528

Post by Ferret7446 »

ien24sdq wrote: post #431
thin_carapace wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tobacco contains MAO inhibiting compounds, which potentiate nicotine and increase addiction potential. that doesnt mean nicotine on its own isnt insanely addictive, i have no idea what the guy youre responding to is talking about. however, MAOIs were withdrawn as antidepressants for a good reason - they have a terrible withdrawal all on their own.

Gwern has a pretty good post on it: https://gwern.net/nicotine Intuitively, why would you chew nicontine gum to stop smoking if it was just as addictive as cigarettes?

Presumably because you aren't turning your lungs into jerky. Sounds like a strict improvement to me

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#529

Post by Ferret7446 »

rimunroe wrote: post #523
tim333 wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of smokers don't feel they are having a good time and want to quit but can't. I'm not sure the same applies to youtube.

I knew someone who had exactly that feeling about YouTube. It was a genuine struggle for them to stop even though the amount of time they spent on it was negatively impacting their life and the content was making them more anxious.

Should YouTube be banned then? YouTube provides a lot of value to a lot of people. I've learned a lot of math, physics, history, DIY from it. But it's addictive (to some)

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#530

Post by Ferret7446 »

youknownothing wrote: post #195
strongpigeon wrote: post #12

There is a fairly low amount of details about the case in the article. This NPR article [0] has a bit more, but it's still fairly sparse. Though it's interesting how Zuckerberg thought it was a good idea to say: "If people feel like they're not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?". Given that this is a case about addiction, that feels like a shockingly bad thing to say in defense of your…

Yeah, Zuck is really being a bit of d** there. You can't spend decades hiring the best engineers in the world and give them millions of dollars worth of resources with the sole aim of creating products specifically designed to retain attention and then simply shrug and say "if you don't like it, leave it". That's just not a fair fight.

Is designing for retention bad then? God forbid you write a story that captivates readers; if they don't stop reading after a few chapters, why, that's illegal mate
Post reply on HN